Thanks for that Collin they've proved themselves to be even bigger cunts than I've I thought, good work.Prestwich_Blue said:Eureka! The penny has finally dropped about why we failed and it's scandalous. Wanted to do this as a separate topic so it's clear to everyone and doesn't get lost in the bigger thread. Hopefully some journo's will pick it up as well.
I assumed from the club statement that there was a difference over how much of the pre-June 2010 wages we could exclude. But UEFA's guidance is crystal clear with no room for misinterpretation. So the issue has to be that they didn't allow us to use this £80m at all.
Here's what the FFP document actually says:
We reported an aggregate break even deficit of £114m, with (as far as I can work out) £83m of that in 2011/12 and £31m in 2012/13. According to the above we should be OK on (i) as we're reporting an improving trend so we go to (ii). The question is, what does that actually mean? To me, and I suspect the club (who would have been guided by UEFA, it means that if we hadn't reported a break-even deficit in 2011/12, would we have still passed? In this case the answer is 'yes' as we only reported a deficit of £31m in 2012/13, which is better than the £37m required. So we were under the distinct impression that we would pass, once the £80m was taken into account and I believe we must have had that in writing.Players under contract before 1 June 2010
If a licensee reports an aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation and it fulfils both conditions described below then this would be taken into account in a favourable way.
i) It reports a positive trend in the annual break-even results (proving it has implemented a concrete strategy for future compliance); and
ii) It proves that the aggregate break-even deficit is only due to the annual break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 which in turn is due to contracts with players undertaken prior to 1 June 2010 (for the avoidance of doubt, all renegotiations on contracts undertaken after such date would not be taken into account).
This means that a licensee that reports an aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation but that satisfies both conditions described under i) and ii) above should in principle not be sanctioned.
However, when the CFCB Investigatory Chamber looked at our accounts, it must have taken a different view and disallowed the application of the £80m on the grounds that it was less than the reported deficit of £83m and therefore £3m of the aggregate deficit was still made up of 2011/12's deficit. Therefore, in their view and in contradiction to what we were told, we couldn't use the exemption at all. So we failed and for the sake of £3m based on a reading of the rule that was totally different to what we'd been told.
Utter cunts. No wonder the club were furious with the double-crossing bastards.
In respect of PB's excellent (and I believe accurate) post I'm at a lost to actually understand what you just posted?coleridge said:Oh come on, PB.
UEFA needed to impose sanctions to save face. The club has played along with a view to the bigger picture. So when other clubs fail by 3m or less, ADUG will be on the case straight away.
UEFA are frightened of ADUG and not the other way round.
With the greatest of respect, you need to see the bigger.
Listen, mate, when you calm down, you'll see that fairness and practicality are two different concepts and [usually] mutually exclusive. ADUG have taken a commercial view. MCFC will benefit in the long run.
Why are all you mods such trigger-happy litigants? LOL
So your saying your happy for us to take a small kick so UEFA can give some of the little clubs a bigger kicking in the future?coleridge said:Oh come on, PB.
UEFA needed to impose sanctions to save face. The club has played along with a view to the bigger picture. So when other clubs fail by 3m or less, ADUG will be on the case straight away.
UEFA are frightened of ADUG and not the other way round.
With the greatest of respect, you need to see the bigger.
Listen, mate, when you calm down, you'll see that fairness and practicality are two different concepts and [usually] mutually exclusive. ADUG have taken a commercial view. MCFC will benefit in the long run.
Why are all you mods such trigger-happy litigants? LOL
ColinLee said:In respect of PB's excellent (and I believe accurate) post I'm at a lost to actually understand what you just posted?coleridge said:Oh come on, PB.
UEFA needed to impose sanctions to save face. The club has played along with a view to the bigger picture. So when other clubs fail by 3m or less, ADUG will be on the case straight away.
UEFA are frightened of ADUG and not the other way round.
With the greatest of respect, you need to see the bigger.
Listen, mate, when you calm down, you'll see that fairness and practicality are two different concepts and [usually] mutually exclusive. ADUG have taken a commercial view. MCFC will benefit in the long run.
Why are all you mods such trigger-happy litigants? LOL
I actually agree with you. We were always going to get shafted but we did the right thing in agreeing a settlement which allows UEFA off the hook with their G-14 masters and gets us into the inner sanctum without being seriously bummed.coleridge said:Oh come on, PB.
UEFA needed to impose sanctions to save face. The club has played along with a view to the bigger picture. So when other clubs fail by 3m or less, ADUG will be on the case straight away.
UEFA are frightened of ADUG and not the other way round.
With the greatest of respect, you need to see the bigger.
Listen, mate, when you calm down, you'll see that fairness and practicality are two different concepts and [usually] mutually exclusive. ADUG have taken a commercial view. MCFC will benefit in the long run.
Why are all you mods such trigger-happy litigants? LOL
Ray78 said:I doubt we have let the cartel completely have their own way.
UEFA Club Financial Control Body appointed
Saturday 30 June 2012 14.05 CET
The UEFA Executive Committee has approved and made official the appointment of the members of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) for a term of office ending on 30 June 2015. The CFCB recently replaced the UEFA Club Financial Control Panel.
The CFCB is underpinned by an Investigatory Chamber, led by the CFCB chief investigator for the investigation stage of the proceedings, and an Adjudicatory Chamber for the judgement stage of the proceedings led by the CFCB chairman.
The tasks of the CFCB are to oversee the application of the UEFA Club Licensing System and Financial Fair Play Regulations. The CFCB can take disciplinary measures and its final decisions may be appealed directly to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne.
Importantly the CFCB is competent to impose disciplinary measures in case of non-fulfilment of the requirements and decide on cases relating to club eligibility for UEFA club competitions.
The CFCB will be chaired by José Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues. A former general prosecutor of the Portuguese Republic, Mr Cunha Rodrigues has been a judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) since 2000. He will take office as of 8 October 2012, when he leaves the CJEU.
Adjudicatory Chamber
José Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues (POR), Chairman of the CFCB
Christiaan Timmermans (NED), Vice-chairman of the CFCB
Louis Peila (SUI), Vice-chairman of the CFCB
Charles Flint (ENG), Member
Adam Giersz (POL), Member
Investigatory Chamber
Jean-Luc Dehaene (BEL), Chief Investigator and Chairman of the Investigatory Chamber
Jacobo Beltrán (ESP), Member
Egon Franck (GER), Member
Umberto Lago (ITA), Member
Petros Mavroidis (GRE), Member
Brian Quinn (SCO), Member
Konstantin Sonin (RUS), Member
Yves Wehrli (FRA), Member
© 1998-2014 UEFA. All rights reserved.
Go to previous newsGo to next news